Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by VickMackey View Post
    where did i ever say Palm is the worst company?

    Keeping this on topic, the thread is about the relative success/failure of Palm.

    It is my opinion that they have failed.
    You are right you never said they were the worst company.

    I guessed I just assumed that it was you thought since I have yet to see you write one positive post about Palm or its current products in any of these forums. Its not a hard leap to make when a person only bemoans and berates a company on a daily basis (I know, I am exaggerating) to think that they think the company is terrible.
  2.    #22  
    Here's some more interesting fuel on the fire of this story. According to this article "According to a filing released today with the SEC, Harbinger owned 16 million Palm shares as of March 26." This means that all of this activity occurred before the big "Palm is for sale" news hit.

    This article also shows the story in a slightly different light, indicating that Harbinger apparently sees the company as more valuable than it's being given credit for. "The initial reaction to this stake is that he could be gaming the possible takeover as maybe he sees more value in PALM than the $1-2 billion enterprise value that has been floated around by various analysts."
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by VickMackey View Post
    It's real simple, they have failed to meet the expectations of:
    1 consumers
    2 shareholders
    3 tech community
    4 developer community


    They have failed to make any progress in
    1 marketshare
    2 mindshare
    3 Stock price is almost what it was before the announcement of the Pre

    How else would you define failure?
    If you read hpasrons post his gives a definition of what he considers failure.

    I guess the question to be answered is: has the company failed? or has the company failed to achieve their goals?

    I think the latter is the case with Palm. The company itself has not failed, yet?, because they are still in business and continue to sell product.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by VickMackey View Post
    ...
    You have "failed" to accomplish your goals on your own.
    Interesting concept. So, when Microsoft enlisted IBM's help, did they thus "fail to accomplish their golas on their own"? I don't think I'd call them a failed company, that's for sure.

    As I alluded to, and zulfaqar621 picked up on, they haven't failed yet.
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by VickMackey View Post
    It's real simple, they have failed to meet the expectations of:
    1 consumers
    2 shareholders
    3 tech community
    4 developer community
    I'd have to say, while those folks are important, Palm is not gone yet, so the final verdict as to whether or not they've ultimately done as you claim isn't really in yet. Rubenstein has alluded to that a number of times.

    Quote Originally Posted by VickMackey View Post
    They have failed to make any progress in
    1 marketshare
    2 mindshare
    3 Stock price is almost what it was before the announcement of the Pre
    Gotta call "factcheck" on every one of these ponits.

    There can be no debate that they're marketshare has increased over what it was when the Pre was announced. Nor can there be any debate over the fact that they, as a company, have more product out now than when they started. Whether we're talking Palm in general, or Palm since the Pre, marketshare is up.

    Mindshare is much the same story. No one was talking about Palm "pre-Pre" competing against anyone. The "mindthought" was "when are they shutting down".

    Stock price before the Pre was at less than $2. Today, it's well over $5, almost to $6.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by bmatlosz View Post
    Can anyone say Apple? About 20 years ago Apple was all but finished. No iPods and no iPhones ......all they had was a crappy Mac. Look where they are now. Palm needs to rip some pages out of the Apple book to survive this situation....
    I think we're beginning to hit an a pattern here.

    With every successful company, there have been failures in their history. The bottom line is, on the day in question, are they still around. Right now at this point in the game. Palm is still around.

    Failnot
  7. #27  
    From all I can see, this investment is a positive sign. Especially in the light of that patent IB firm , who said that they felt PALM's patent portfolio alone was worth $8 $9/share.

    I believe that there is more truth to that then is easily apparent.

    Moreover,...

    This was an "open Market" purchase. They bought shares just like you and I would, via thier broker... its likely that this is what started the huge volume day on Monday... and will likely create a line of resistance on the technical trading charts going forward.

    The above statement is very important.. they bought shares on the open market, and deliberately bought less than 10% so as NOT to be classified as an "insider" where very specific and limiting trading rules would kick in; if they were sure that a buyout was imminent, they wouldn't care about those rules, they'd just buy as many shares as they could up to whatever amount that they allocated available, and then collect the profit when the buyout settled and shares/cash traded hands...

    No, they bought it and wanted to stay out of the formal radar range so they could trade it, as they see fit. In other words, if they did thier due dilligence correctly, and 6 months from now, PALM is back up at $20 because the c40 is a smashing success, they can sell and make a fortune, and not have to conform to any guidelines, rules or requirements that "insiders" do.. they are just another institutional investor (versus Elevation Partners, who did not buy shares in the open market, but did so via a private offering of shares so PALM could get the money they needed to go forward from selling them the addtional shares, which diluted the shareholder equity by about 60mil shares or so, if I remember correctly).

    They could have approached PALM with a cah infusion offer, but PALM doesn't need small amounts of cash to survive - they are just fine; THAT is where HEDGE funds are "evil".. they prey on the cash starved, barely surviving companies and give them money for shares that are used to later cover a heavy shorting campaign that they enter into. This, obviously, didnt happen.

    Or, they could have performed the proverbial "pump n dump"... pushthe stock price up aas high as possible with their own and their cohorts buys at the ask, and then, when they saw it caught on, and the market was buying into the hyped price, they dump their shares at higher prices into the demand; this didnt happen either, as the filing shows they are holding thier shares.

    No, it looks like they are "long" withthier shares of PALM; these guys appear to be technology-astute investors, and, their ability to research to levels that the average individual investor cannot achieve is likely why they have been so successful, to date.

    IMHO, of course.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  8. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    From all I can see, this investment is a positive sign. Especially in the light of that patent IB firm , who said that they felt PALM's patent portfolio alone was worth $8 $9/share.

    I believe that there is more truth to that then is easily apparent.
    +1

    Some of the experts are discounting the value of the patent. The patent value truly comes out when someone else files a lawsuit. Remember what happened with RIMM and this small virginia company called Visto. Check the news here

    Makes me wonder some of the analysts + tech journalists have hallow heads. Most of the news are not focusing on Palm's patents.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    I ran a little statistical analysis and it turned out that while failure is sometimes associated with later success, failure is much more often ultimately associated with failure.
    Why would you have to do a statistical analysis for that? All failure incorporated failure. Not all succes does.

    However, the real thing of interest would be, how many successes involved some major failures along the way. That would be the applicable thing here.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Failing and succeeding are both very relative.
    Failing at what?
    Not succeeding at what?

    • Are they failing to turn a profit?
      Yes, but they didn't expect to turn a profit at this stage.
    • Are they failing to do as well as they expected?
      Yes, but many companies fail to meet expectatioins, and still continue on as a company.
    • Have they succeeded in keeping the company Palm from closing their doors, as was widely predicted and expted almost two years ago?
      Yes, indeed they have succeeded at that.
    • Have they succeeded at introducing a totally new smartphone that is still considered a viable option?
      Without a doubt.


    Success, failure, it's all relative. Personally, I'll consider them to have "failed" as a company, when the name goes away against the company's desire.

    And, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning of this thread:
    I don't think it's a matter of failing or succeeding, because any company can do both those things.

    What this really boils down to is having enough money to stay in the game. That's really what we're dealing with here.

    Palm can "fail" or "succeed" all they want, long as they can pay their bills. If they can't pay their bills nobody cares how much they're succeeding.
  11. #31  
    UntidyGuy;

    Every person and entity on this planet has failed miserably at some point or another.

    Its the failures in life that lead to successes - every success that you can cite will have THAT in common - of that, there is no doubt.

    Those failures that don't lead to successes are usually where the failure is so extreme, it literally destroyed all chances of recovery.

    So, "Philosophy of Logic" class 101:

    Fact 1: All successful companies will have, at some point or another, experienced a severe failure of sorts.

    Fact 2: All companies that have experienced severe failures will NOT necessarily achieve success.

    Fact 3: Never underestimate the ability of the willingness to succeed.

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  12. #32  
    As LCGuy alluded to in his post about the insider trading rules, I felt, once I read up on Harbinger, that this was clearly a situation where Harbinger knows what is coming. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if Palm is working with their technology as part of their 4G phone strategy. My educated guess is that they know what the products on the drawing board, see a company that is way undervalued, that might get acquired, and feel that their is far more potential profits in buying now, than any risks that might occur if they continue to struggle.

    Let's be real here, their patents are worth as much or more than their cap value. Plus they have over half a billion dollars in cash. Investors like this, who have equity over $1 million, get to dabble in all the venture capital stuff, and get information not generally available. Now they've made a play, and their downside risk must appear, to them, to be pretty low.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions